Referred to as: General Mdluli · Mdluli · Lieutenant General Mdluli · Richard Mdluli
No picture yet. Upload one or paste an image URL.
Captain McLean confirms involvement in investigations starting around March 2011 into the murder of Oupa Ramogibe in Vosloorus, related to General Mdluli.
“In 2011, I think it was March, it was our public holiday, we were informed to form part of a team coming up to Gauteng to investigate a murder of Oupa Ramogibe in Vosloorus against General Mdluli at the time.”
Multiple cases were opened involving abuse of the Secret Service Account, including against General Lazarus and Colonel Barnard, as well as General Mdluli.
“We opened, at that time we opened two other separate cases that was running. One was against General Lazarus and Colonel Barnard. And then the other matter was General Lazarus, General Mdlulian and Colonel Barnard. The first one was on a Lyttelton matter against General Lazarus and Barnard for abusing the Secret Service Account.”
The payment of 3.5 million for a dodgy cop was authorised by General Mdluli.
“The 3.5 million for the dodgy cop, that payment was authorised by General Mdluli”
At the time of the Selebii investigation, General Mdluli was the Provincial Commissioner of Crime Intelligence, Lieutenant General Mulangi Mphego was the Divisional Commissioner, and Mulangi Mphego was arrested by the Scorpions for interfering in the Jackie Selebii investigation.
“during the Selebii investigation, General Mdluli was the Provincial Commissioner of Crime Intelligence and the Divisional Commissioner was Lieutenant General Mulangi Mphego. And Mulangi Mphego was arrested by the Scorpions for interfering in the Jackie Selebii investigation”
Mulangi Mphego was suspended, resigned and left after arrest, and General Mdluli was promoted to Lieutenant General and became Divisional Commissioner while General Mabasa became Provincial Commissioner.
“while he was on suspension, he resigned and left. And then General Mdluli was promoted to Lieutenant General and became the Divisional Commissioner and General Mabasa became the Provincial Commissioner”
Minister Nathi Mthethwa instructed General Mkhwanazi to uplift the suspension of General Mdluli, despite General Mkhwanazi later claiming this instruction was illegal but still complying with it.
“A t t h e m e e t i n g w i t h M i n i s t e r M t h e t h w a a n d t h e I n s p e c t o r G e n e r a l o f I n t e l l i g e n c e , t h e M i n i s t e r i n s t r u c t e d G e n e r a l M k h w a n a z i t o u p l i f t t h e s u s p e n s i o n o f G e n e r a l M d l u l i . G e n e r a l M k h w a n a z i l a t e r c l a i m s t o h a v e i n f o r m e d M i n i s t e r M t h e t h w a a t th i s i n s t r u c t i o n w a s i l l e g a l . N e v e r t h e l e s s , h e a c q u i e s c e d”
General Mkhwanazi uplifted the suspension of General Mdluli on 27 March 2012 and assigned him additional responsibility of protecting the President and Ministers in the VIP Protection unit despite the suspension.
“General Mkhwanazi uplifted the suspension of General Mdluli on the 27th of March 2012 and he returned to work, where he was also handed the additional responsibility of protecting the President and Ministers”
After the launch of the Freedom Under Law application, new disciplinary proceedings were instituted against General Mdluli, and on 25 May 2012, General Mkhwanazi suspended General Mdluli again, reversing his earlier decision due to public pressure.
“after the Freedom Under Law application was launched, new disciplinary proceedings were instituted against General Mdluli and on the 25th of May 2012, General Mkhwanazi recanted his earlier decision and suspended General Mdluli again. Public pressure was building”
General Mkhwanazi was pressured by President Zuma in early June 2012 to withdraw the new disciplinary proceedings and suspension of General Mdluli.
“At the start of June, General Mkhwanazi met with President Zuma and appears to have been pressurised to withdraw the new disciplinary proceedings against General Mdluli and his suspension”
General Mkhwanazi readily succumbed to political pressure and implemented the illegal instruction of the Police Minister to uplift the suspension of General Mdluli while knowing the instruction was illegal.
“the narrative of General Mkhwanazi shows that he readily succumbed to political pressure and implemented the illegal instruction of the Minister to uplift the suspension of General Mdluli whilst at all material times knowing that this instruction was illegal”
General Mkhwanazi did not admit to the allegations of executive interference in his answering affidavit to the Freedom Under Law urgent interdict, instead opposing the urgent interdict on spurious grounds.
“General Mkhwanazi did not admit the relevant facts. Instead, he deposed to an affidavit which did not respond to the allegations but nevertheless opposed on spurious grounds the urgent interdicts ought to prevent General Mdluli from executing police functions”
The Supreme Court of Appeal judgment noted that General Mkhwanazi was instructed by higher authorities to withdraw disciplinary charges and reinstate General Mdluli, and that Mkhwanazi failed to make an independent decision, rendering his actions reviewable.
“Freedom Under Law relied in its founding affidavit on a statement by the then acting Commissioner, Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi, in Parliament that he was instructed by authorities beyond him to withdraw disciplinary charges and reinstate Mdluli in his office... Freedom Under Law added that in doing so Mkhwanazi had failed to make an independent decision, which rendered his actions reviewable”
The Murphy judgment found that General Mkhwanazi dropped disciplinary charges on orders from unknown persons beyond the Acting Commissioner, which was unlawful and a violation of discretionary power principles.
“Mkhwanazi dropped the disciplinary charges on orders from above, is furthermore borne out by the Rule 53 record filed on his behalf... The inescapable finding is that the decision of the Acting Commissioner to withdraw the disciplinary charges and to reinstate Mdluli as Head of Crime Intelligence were taken in an attitude of subservience pursuant to an unlawful dictation from a person unknown who was beyond the Acting Commissioner”
General Mkhwanazi lodged a grievance against the National Commissioner for lodging false affidavits in court regarding Lieutenant General Mdluli’s case, but did nothing about the grievance allowing falsehoods to be presented to the court.
“Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi lodged a grievance against the National Commissioner for lodging false affidavits in court regarding Lieutenant General Mdluli’s case ... other than lodging grievance he did nothing about it . He allowed her to lie to the court”
Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi lodged a grievance against the National Commissioner about false affidavits lodged in court in relation to Lieutenant General Mdluli's case, corroborating that he did not act on the grievance allowing false information to be presented to court.
“Lieutenant General Mkhwanazi lodged a grievance against the National Commissioner for lodging false affidavits ... other than lodging a grievance he did nothing about it ... He allowed her to lie to the court”
Mr. O'Sullivan states that during the period when President Zuma was in power, the Acting Commissioner would have known that for their affidavit to be truthful, he would have had to state he received an instruction from the Minister of Police to reappoint General Mdluli.
“he would have had to say ... he got an instruction according to his version ... from the Commissioner, from the Minister of Police to reappoint General Mdluli”
General Mkhwanazi colluded in an illegal process of political interference designed to keep General Mdluli in charge of the division of Crime Intelligence and regularly stole secret funds.
“Given General Mkhwanazi's own collusion in an illegal process of political interference, designed to keep Mdluli in charge of the division of Crime Intelligence and its regularly stolen secret funds”
In 2011/12 General Mkhwanazi protected one General in Crime Intelligence, Lieutenant General Mdluli, and in 2025 he protected five Generals in Crime Intelligence.
“in 2011/12 he was protecting one General in Crime Intelligence which was Lieutenant General Mdluli and in 2025 he is protecting five Generals in Crime Intelligence”
General Mdluli was suspended on 29 April 2021 related to an alleged murder case.
“General Mdluli had already been on suspension, having been suspended on 29th April 2021 and that suspension related to the alleged murder case”
Lieutenant General Mdluli had not been suspended on fraud and corruption charges and disciplinary charges were initiated separately.
“Lieutenant General Mdluli had not been suspended on the fraud and corruption charges which he introduces ... he instructed Lieutenant General Stander ... to initiate steps to implement disciplinary charges against Lieutenant General Mdluli”
General Mkhwanazi instructed Lieutenant General Stander to appoint an outside person to assess the available evidence regarding General Mdluli and advise on the way forward around fraud and corruption charges towards the end of 2011.
“he then decided to instruct Lieutenant General Stander to appoint an outside person to assess the available evidence to determine whether it implicated General Mdluli and then to advise me on the way forward. These events took place roughly towards the end of 2011”
Disciplinary charges were brought against Lieutenant General Mdluli for fraud based on a report obtained by Lieutenant General Stander.
“Pursuant to this report, disciplinary charges were brought against Lieutenant General Mdluli”
Minister intervened and ordered to drop charges against General Mdluli and put him back to work, contradicting proper disciplinary procedures.
“But then along came the Minister who said, cut all this up, drop the charges, put him back to work, and he did that”
General Mkhwanazi suspended General Mdluli again on 25 May following the launch of the Freedom Under Law urgent application.
“General Mkhwanazi re-suspended General Mdluli on the 25th of May”
Minister's suspension of General Mdluli was influenced by an urgent application launched by Freedom Under Law on 15 May.
“soon the same day that FUL launched the urgent application, you are aware that General Mkhwanazi did suspend General Mdluli again? Ten days later. The Freedom Under Law case was launched on the 15th of May”
General Mkhwanazi had to re-suspend General Mdluli because he received the urgent application on his desk and had no choice but to act accordingly.
“he did not really have much of a choice, because this application landed on his desk on the 15th of May. So ten days later, while he is doing his affidavit to respond to this application, this urgent application, he re-suspends him, and I am saying he was in a corner. He had no choice. He had to do it”
The Minister instructed actions that effectively protected General Mdluli, enabling him to continue plundering the secret fund.
“he followed the Minister's instruction and put it as high as that was action, he acted to protect Mdluli who, for purposes of plundering the secret fund”
There were efforts taken to discipline General Mdluli which were disregarded when he withdrew the suspension at the Minister's instruction.
“You disregard all the efforts that he took to discipline General Mdluli ... in fact, when he did withdraw the uplift, rather, the suspension, it was at the instruction of the Minister”
General Mdluli did not give any explanation of his version of events until 8 years later.
“he has only given his version of events 8 years later ... He waits 8 years”
General Mdluli was a Major General and a junior senior police officer aged 38 at the time relevant to the events discussed.
“He was a Major General in the police, and he was aged 38”
General Mdluli was colluding to keep himself in place to continue plundering the secret fund, supported by the Minister.
“He made the decision to collude, to keep General Mdluli in place, so that he can plunder, continue to plunder the secret fund in the same way as he is doing in 2025”
General Mdluli was suspended and there was a disciplinary matter and criminal case pending against him, with delays in responses from the Inspector General of Intelligence (IGI).
“I informed him that I had written to the IGI and had received a response from her regarding the disciplinary matter against him, but was awaiting her response regarding the criminal case against him ... I telephoned Advocate Hadebe to inform her that I would not be lifting General Mdluli's suspension until she has perused the criminal case docket”
General Mdluli should return to work only after the IGI has examined the criminal case docket.
“I disagreed with the IGI's view that Lieutenant General Mdluli should return to work. She had not yet read the criminal case docket ... I would not be lifting General Mdluli's suspension until she has perused the criminal case docket”
The court found that Acting Commissioner General Mkhwanazi was instructed by authorities beyond him to withdraw disciplinary charges and reinstate General Mdluli, without making an independent decision, making his actions reviewable.
“The factual basis for the challenge by FUL is that it relied on statements made by then Acting Commissioner General Mkhwanazi in Parliament, that he was instructed by authorities beyond him to withdraw disciplinary charges and reinstate Mdluli ... Mkhwanazi had failed to make an independent decision which rendered his actions reviewable”